George, no one has said that viruses couldnt some how play a role in this. All we have said is that there is currently no evidence to support that hypothesis. The Blog you refer to provides no additional evidence, only the opinion of some anonymous individual.

A hypothesis without evidence is just that, a hypothesis. It is not the obligation of the scientific community to disprove every hypothesis someone comes up with. If someone feels strongly enough about a hypothesis then they will do the research to either prove or disprove it, but to strongly defend a hypothesis before such evidence is available suggests an alternative agenda.

Signature

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Sorry, he is not an anonymous individual. Greg Cochran is a professor of genetic anthropology form the Universrity of Utah, and his pathogen theory has been reviwed by Bill Hamilton who found it reasonable. So it’s your word against that of Hamilton.

Sorry, he is not an anonymous individual. Greg Cochran is a professor of genetic anthropology form the Universrity of Utah, and his pathogen theory has been reviwed by Bill Hamilton who found it reasonable. So it’s your word against that of Hamilton.

Its not my word against Hamilton’s. It simply Hamilton’s opinion with no supporting evidence which is the point I am trying to make. Opinion does not add support to a hypothesis no matter who’s opinion it is, only empirical evidence does.

Signature

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

But I am sure I am simply wasting my time here. Everyone of you here has already decided that it can’t be want it seems to be—yes, a virus—and I will try my best to avoid posting any further comments regarding this topic anywhere of these forums.

Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?

Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?

No, and even that doesn’t matter. If a person WANTED to be gay, so what. As long as the partner is of the ability/age to consent, I really don’t care if it is by choice or they were born that way. Either way, I would support their choice. (Lois, this isn’t directed toward you. )

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Sorry, he is not an anonymous individual. Greg Cochran is a professor of genetic anthropology form the Universrity of Utah, and his pathogen theory has been reviwed by Bill Hamilton who found it reasonable. So it’s your word against that of Hamilton.

The original article is based on collaborations of several universities as well. Also, having research reported by the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis doesn’t seem like an easy feat.

Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?

No, and even that doesn’t matter. If a person WANTED to be gay, so what. As long as the partner is of the ability/age to consent, I really don’t care if it is by choice or they were born that way. Either way, I would support their choice. (Lois, this isn’t directed toward you. )

I doubt it’s a choice for anyone. The way i see it, people have an natural orientation that they have no control over. I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be gay if s/he was heterosexual—and vice versa. It’s not an easy life to be gay. And I doubt it’s actually possible to choose. It’s possible to experiment, but a person can’t change his or her orientation, IMO.

Throughout history many gay people have forced themselves to pretend to be heterosexual. That is not being heterosexual. This can lead to disaster for themselves and most especially for a spouse.

There’s a stand up comic who has a routine about people “choosing” to be straight. He points out that women make us men do all kinds of things that we men don’t like to do, shave, bathe, wear fancy clothes, respond to our asking of “What’s wrong?” with “Nothing!” and so on, while guys are basically willing to nail anything that’ll hold still long enough, and that, logically, it’d make more sense for us to be gay, than straight.

Signature

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

There’s a stand up comic who has a routine about people “choosing” to be straight. He points out that women make us men do all kinds of things that we men don’t like to do, shave, bathe, wear fancy clothes, respond to our asking of “What’s wrong?” with “Nothing!” and so on, while guys are basically willing to nail anything that’ll hold still long enough, and that, logically, it’d make more sense for us to be gay, than straight.

Isn’t there something funny in asking for the causes of being gay? I think asking for the causes of being straight is just as interesting. As a byproduct one might get the answer why about 5% of all humans through all cultures are gay. The idea that we should look just for the causes of being gay suggests that then we can do something about it. And that suggests that we think being gay is not ok.

The common argument ‘when all people were gay, we would be extinct in one generation’ is not a causal argument. The kind of reasoning here is similar to the anthropic principle . Because we exist, and proliferate sexually, it follows that there must be a minimum percentage of straight people. But that is not a causal explanation at all.

So again, looking for the causes of being gay alone is somehow funny.

And about epigenetics: I found two different (overlapping) definitions of it:
- study of the mechanism that determines which genes will be expressed in a cell
- study of how such mechanisms can contribute to inheritance over at least one generation

Genes contain the blueprint for enzymes and other proteins. Which genes are activated is determined by chemical processes in the cell, which in turn are determined by external influences and by the proteins it contains already, which in turn… To look for a mono causal explanation as if the genes determine it all is naive. The only thing we really know is that changes in phenotype are not transcribed into the genotype: here the causality is definitely in one direction.

Epigenetics might show however that there is a second (but weaker) mechanism for inheritance. I have no idea what that has to do with nurture. We’re still talking inheritance.

Signature

GdB

When the word ‘truth’ is uttered a shadow of violence is cast as well.

However, I’ve known people from all sorts of backgrounds who have turned out gay. Also, there are gay people in all cultures—I think that speaks volumes.

Yeah, this is a big strike against the “nurture” idea of sexual orientation.

Also, the fact that other primates, other mammals, other non-mammalian organisms, have been observed engaging in same sex behavior. Anybody who considers themselves to be a rationalist, cannot deny that same sex attraction is part of the biosphere.

There are at least two types of epigenetics. One would be based on and programmed by the DNA, like the methylation, but these are usually reset in the offspring. The second would be changes introduced by the environment. These cannot be passed onto the next generations, as there is no evidence that Lamarckism (i.e., inheritance of acquired characteristics) works.